BlackDE Posted March 11, 2011 Share #1 Posted March 11, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I went out at night first time with my M3 for some night shots. I used Ilford Delta 3200. I metered with my Nikon DSLR and transfered the reading onto the M3. Most shots look like this and are underexposed. :(What went wrong? Cheers, Bernhard Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/146106-underexposure-what-went-wrong-here/?do=findComment&comment=1613283'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Hi BlackDE, Take a look here Underexposure - what went wrong here?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
otto.f Posted March 11, 2011 Share #2 Posted March 11, 2011 Seems ok with me, you only get more of that nasty noise in the sky if you would have exposed longer. What developer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpitt Posted March 11, 2011 Share #3 Posted March 11, 2011 Did you take some shots with your DSLR of this scene? If so, it could help if you post it as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted March 11, 2011 Share #4 Posted March 11, 2011 You exceeded the lower metering limit of your DSLR camera. Below that limit, metering results are unpredictable and unreliable. To meter really low light, you want a light meter with a particularily low lower metering limit, such as the Gossen Profisix or Minolta Auto Meter II. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDE Posted March 12, 2011 Author Share #5 Posted March 12, 2011 Seems ok with me, you only get more of that nasty noise in the sky if you would have exposed longer.What developer? Hi, thx. That was prolab in Stuttgart. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted March 12, 2011 Share #6 Posted March 12, 2011 Hi, thx. That was prolab in Stuttgart. It could have been developed with a little more bite, I suppose you let it develop for you in a lab, so that has been a general purpose developer. With 3200ASA films you have to chose a specific developer to get the best out of it. I would chose Ilfotec 1+19 as a start. The Massive Dev Chart: B&W film development database Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDE Posted March 12, 2011 Author Share #7 Posted March 12, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Did you take some shots with your DSLR of this scene? If so, it could help if you post it as well. Yes, I should have. But unfortunately I didn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDE Posted March 12, 2011 Author Share #8 Posted March 12, 2011 Other shots look like this. There was enough light for a faster shutter speed. The picture should not be that grainy. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/146106-underexposure-what-went-wrong-here/?do=findComment&comment=1613538'>More sharing options...
otto.f Posted March 12, 2011 Share #9 Posted March 12, 2011 The picture should not be that grainy. Quite normal for a 3200 film and a not optimal development given the exposure, this one seems overexposed to me given the development. On certain technical criteria it may be legitmate to speak of a 3200ASA film, but that does not mean that all shots are esthetically acceptable like with a 100 or 400 film. Given a certain developer the real ASA-value may be 1200 or 1600. You cannot compare this with Nikon digital pictures of 3200ASA Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDE Posted March 12, 2011 Author Share #10 Posted March 12, 2011 Quite normal for a 3200 film and a not optimal development given the exposure, this one seems overexposed to me given the development. On certain technical criteria it may be legitmate to speak of a 3200ASA film, but that does not mean that all shots are esthetically acceptable like with a 100 or 400 film. Given a certain developer the real ASA-value may be 1200 or 1600. You cannot compare this with Nikon digital pictures of 3200ASA Thank you very much. I guess I still have to learn a lot. Cheers, Bernhard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpitt Posted March 12, 2011 Share #11 Posted March 12, 2011 This is a low light example on Ilford XP2. It was one of the darkest restaurants I have ever been in. The result is better than I expected. It was shot at f2.0 @ 1/4 with Summicron 40 - C My exposure setting was simple. This was the lowest speed I could hope for some decent result, so I used that The iPod touch I used as a meter was barely able to measure the candle light highlights anyway, so it was not much help in this low light. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/146106-underexposure-what-went-wrong-here/?do=findComment&comment=1613770'>More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted March 12, 2011 Share #12 Posted March 12, 2011 Besides exposure I think there may be an element of bad processing and/or scanning here too. Night shots - rather than low light - are really trial and error. I'd have tried a few exposures at f8 at maybe 1/8th, 1/2 and 2s - try again but use Delta 400 or Hp5 at 800iso, extend those times a little and process in microphen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 12, 2011 Share #13 Posted March 12, 2011 Other shots look like this. There was enough light for a faster shutter speed. The picture should not be that grainy. Is the chemical print the same or is this grain aliasing through scanning Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted March 12, 2011 Share #14 Posted March 12, 2011 I wonder if the developer might have been too cold. When I used to use T-Max3200 quite a bit and I found that for minimal grain, especially if you were pushing by one or two stops, it was best to use Kodak T-Max developer. I made the mistake once of forgetting to turn on the tank heater and I got a very grainy end result. Rodinal gave better contrast but more grain. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted March 12, 2011 Share #15 Posted March 12, 2011 These modern films as Tmax and Delta high ISO are mostbly better of with a temperature of 24C if you use a modern developer also. If you do not like grain I would certainly not use HP5, which has ugly grain when pushed. Tri-X is quite nice at 800. Rodinal is quite coarse for higher ISO's and not the first choice above 125ASA Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDE Posted March 12, 2011 Author Share #16 Posted March 12, 2011 I wonder if the developer might have been too cold. When I used to use T-Max3200 quite a bit and I found that for minimal grain, especially if you were pushing by one or two stops, it was best to use Kodak T-Max developer. I made the mistake once of forgetting to turn on the tank heater and I got a very grainy end result. Rodinal gave better contrast but more grain. Wilson Thank you, Wilson. However, I had the film processed at a professional lab. I have never done this myself. Bernhard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDE Posted March 12, 2011 Author Share #17 Posted March 12, 2011 Is the chemical print the same or is this grain aliasing through scanning Hmm, good idea. I had the lab make scans only, no prints. Maybe I should ask them for prints as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted March 12, 2011 Share #18 Posted March 12, 2011 I went out at night first time with my M3 for some night shots. I used Ilford Delta 3200. I metered with my Nikon DSLR and transfered the reading onto the M3. Most shots look like this and are underexposed. :(What went wrong? Cheers, Bernhard In these conditions anyway I'd respectfully suggest to not to trust the Nikon metering. I'd rather go with Sunny 16 and tentative exposures. I'm in no condition to tell, but a shot like that at ISO 3200 might have required about 1/45 at f 2.8, so in full linear range to exclude Schwartzschild effect. I'd say graininess being inevitable with a film that speed. I didn't understand whether you posted a scan from the negative or from the print. If it's the print then you may want to try a harder paper i.e. more contrasted and less intermediate grey tones. If it's a scan from the negative you may want to correct by increasing a bit the contrast and increasing the black. This should cover the grain/noise. Finally, I'd suggest you to take courage and learn developing bw films yourself. You'll learn lots of things and you 'll have plenty of options to play with - pushing/pulling exposures, different developers, graininess, etc. Cheers, Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted March 12, 2011 Share #19 Posted March 12, 2011 If you go to the lab anyway, I would go for the XP2, if you develop yourself FUJI1600 is the best choice for high ISO with esthetic grain, has its own developer. Don't know about availability btw Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted March 12, 2011 Share #20 Posted March 12, 2011 here are some shots taken on pan f .......i guess the exposure time was a bit shorter than yours but just so you can see what low speed film can deliver in dim light... i guess the shots you posted are overexposed not underexposed. andy http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/143347-great-night-out.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.